Question: If they were not Me'arev, both of them should be forbidden!

Answer: They do not really spill into the Ukah in the Chatzer, rather, they spill onto the floor (on which the Aliyah is built), and the water descends to the Ukah near it;

Even though it is a Chatzer that was not Me'arev, Chachamim do not forbid here, only in a Karmelis, similar to what we explained above. However, a Chatzer that was not Me'arev, they did not forbid at all.

Support: The Rashbam ruled like this. It is permitted to spill water, even though the water goes to another Reshus that did not make an Eruv. From Reshus to Reshus a cover is not needed;

Those who did not make an Ukah are forbidden, like it says "perhaps they will come to take out water in a Kli of the house to here. They will take down from the Aliyah in Kelim full of water to the edge of the Ukah that is far from them, for they do not want the water to fall below and ruin the Chatzer.

Implied suggestion: [The Halachah follows R. Meir, for] we hold like decrees of R. Meir, even against a majority, like we say in Kesuvos (57a) regarding "one may keep his wife two or three years without a Kesuvah."

Rejection (Ri): Here the Halachah does not follow R. Meir, for below (91a) we rule like R. Shimon, who says that they are all one Reshus;

Also, here we forbid a wall between two Chatzeros according to R. Meir, and R. Yochanan permitted this above (77a) and below (92a).

Observation: We could have answered that the wall is less than four Tefachim wide. (Then, surely there is no need to decree.)

Implied question: Below (91a), Rav and Shmuel rule like R. Shimon!

Answer #1: Here they argue according to Rabanan, and [even though Rav and Shmuel] do not hold like them.

Answer #2: [They argue according to Rabanan, and] there is a consequence of their argument also for R. Shimon, for Kelim that were Shoves in the house.

Implied question: For Kelim that were Shoves [on the roof, the roof] is totally breached to a place permitted to it!

Answer: Even so, it is properly considered totally breached to a forbidden place for Kelim that were Shoves in the house;

This resembles what I explained above (42b, DH Lo) that [his Techum] is totally breached to a place forbidden to it to transfer from inside to outside, but from outside to inside, it is [totally breached to] a place permitted to him. (The latter is permitted, for there is no concern lest he be drawn after his item.)

Answer #3: [They argue according to Rabanan, and] there is a consequence of their argument when the roofs are more than Beis Sa'atayim. If one does not say Gud Asik, it is forbidden, like we say below (90a).

Explanation: [We discuss] when the houses are connected and the walls of the houses (between each other) are not evident, like Rashi explained.

Assertion: The same applies if the roof juts out from the walls of the houses. This is considered walls that are not evident.

Pesak (Ri): Our roofs, that their ends jut out to Reshus ha'Rabim, and they are made like Arzila, according to Rashi, who explains (90a) that "like Arzila" is slanted, like our roofs, they are a Karmelis, for the walls are not evident, and we cannot say Gud Asik ;

Also Pi Tikra [Yored v'Sosem] we do not say when they are made like Arzila;

Also Gud Achis we do not say, according to Rabanan of R. Yosi bar Yehudah, regarding a basket, due to penetration of goats. And even R. Yosi bar Yehudah said only regarding a basket, which has Mechitzos [around the pole], like he said above (33b);

Therefore, the entire roof is forbidden, since the entire roof is totally breached to a Karmelis, i.e. to the part that sticks out to Reshus ha'Rabim.

Implied question: The Rabim do not use it, since it is [above] 10 high!

Answer: [Even so,] it becomes a Karmelis, for we do not find a Mekom Petur that is four [by four] wide;

Source: A house whose interior is less than 10 [Tefachim tall], and its ceiling completes 10, the interior is Karmelis, and one may carry in it only within four Amos, even though the Rabim do not use it, since it is closed on every side.

Implied question: It says in Shabbos (7a) that there is no Karmelis above 10!

Answer: That means that due to the power of the ground (a Karmelis), the air does not become Karmelis above 10, like it says there that Rabanan gave [Karmelis] the leniencies of Reshus ha'Rabim, that the air above 10 is Mekom Petur.

Implied question: Why is a balcony Reshus ha'Yachid, and not Karmelis? (Tosfos ha'Rosh - when it is above water, we require vertical walls of 10 Tefachim only to draw water, but not to carry on it.)

Answer #1: This is due to Gud Achis, for penetration of fish is not considered penetration, like I explained above (86b DH Gezuztra).

Answer #2: [A balcony is Reshus ha'Yachid] if it is open to Reshus ha'Yachid, for it is like a hole of Reshus ha'Yachid;

Similarly, a ledge that juts out to Reshus ha'Rabim that is four wide is Reshus ha'Yachid (98b) - this is when it is next to a window within 10, for it is like a hole of Reshus ha'Yachid.

Implied question: Why is a lock considered Reshus ha'Yachid (below, 101b)?

Answer #1: This is because there is no penetration of goats, for the porch is three [Tefachim] tall.

Answer #2: The lock itself is 10 tall. It is Reshus ha'Yachid even if there is a full Reshus ha'Rabim underneath it, just like the wagons [of the Leviyim] were Reshus ha'Yachid, and under them was Reshus ha'Rabim, in Shabbos (99a).

Support #1: Also Rashi explained below (92a) on our Mishnah of a big roof next to a small roof, regarding "just like the Chatzer has recognizable Mechitzos, also the roof has recognizable Mechitzos", that the roof may not jut outside;

If it is not evident, we do not say Gud Asik, and also the big roof is forbidden, for it does not have any Mechitzah, and anything without a Mechitzah is not Reshus ha'Yachid.

Support #2: Also in our Sugya, regarding even roofs (one is not 10 taller than the other), according to R. Meir, we ask a contradiction in Rav. Rashi explained that he does not hold that Gud Achis. Also here, regarding even roofs, according to R. Meir...

Granted, each does not forbid the other, for he considers them one Reshus. However, people of Reshus ha'Rabim who pass in front of them, in back of them and to the side of the outer ones, why don't they forbid them? The roof has no Mechitzah!

Question (against the Ri's Pesak (c)): However, the Yerushalmi connotes that it is not considered Karmelis. R. Yochanan said there that ledges and walls that were 10 tall and four wide are permitted here and here, as long as he does not transfer.

Inference: He considers them Mekom Petur, since he permits them to people of Reshus ha'Rabim and of Reshus ha'Yachid.

Assertion: It seems that the walls mentioned there are rocks sticking out of the wall. If it were a wall 10 tall and four wide, surely it is Reshus ha'Yachid!

Implied question: Why does it say that it is four wide?

Answer: This is a bigger Chidush. Even so, it is Mekom Petur, and all the more so if it is not four wide.

Implied question: A house whose interior is not 10 tall is Karmelis, even though the Rabim cannot use it!

Answer: Here, since it is above 10, it should be considered Mekom Petur, even though it is four wide, since it is not Reshus ha'Rabim and not Reshus ha'Yachid. (This refutes Source (e:1) above.)

Rejection (of Support #2): The contradiction in Rav (90a) was not because Reshus ha'Rabim forbids, like Rashi explained, for Reshus ha'Rabim never forbids above 10;

Rather, it is because the Makshan knew that it is more than Beis Sa'atayim, like [the Gemara] concludes [to resolve Shmuel].

Implied question: [If the Makshan knew that it is more than Beis Sa'atayim,] why did he ask [a contradiction in] Shmuel? (Here he forbids because it is more than Beis Sa'atayim!)

Answer: The Makshan held that it is unreasonable to say that the Mechitzos are not made for above, and [the roof] is not considered Hukaf l'Dirah.

Implied question: We say below (92a) regarding "the roof has recognizable Mechitzos", that if they are not evident, also the big [roof] is forbidden (it is Karmelis)!

Answer: [It is not Karmelis. Rather,] the small [roof] forbids it. However, when the Mechitzos are evident, the small does not forbid it, due to Gud Asik, even to make it an opening;

This is unlike Rav Yosef below, who said that if there is not a Mechitzah on this, and not on this, both are forbidden, and he does not say Gud Asik to make an opening, because people do not make such openings.

Explanation: The small roof enters the big one, like we established above (9b) that our Mishnah of a small Chatzer breached to a big [Chatzer] is when the walls of the small enter the big, so it is not Nir'eh miba'Chutz v'Shavah mibi'Fnim.

Explanation: According to what [some] explain above (59b, 61a) that Dakah is a wall, the Ri explains here that when he built an Aliyah and made a Mechitzah all around his roof and opened to the side of the [other] roofs and made in front of the opening a Dakah (wall) four [tall], then it is fixed usage;

Note: Above (59b DH d'Avud), Tosfos said that there Dakah is a wall, and so Rashi explained on 61a, but Rashi on 59b explained that Dakah is a low opening, and so we must explain here (89b).

However, without a Dakah, he fears to make a fixed usage there, due to people of the other roofs.

Question: Also without a Dakah, it says above that if there is a Mechitzah proper for Dirah on the big [roof] and not on the small, even the small is permitted to people of the big!

Alternative text: R. Chananel's text says "all the roofs are permitted." I.e. if [the owners of] the other roofs were Me'arev, and this one was not Me'arev with them, he does not forbid them. Since he made a Dakah, he removed himself from them.

Consequence: According to his Perush, we must say that on the side of the roofs it is totally breached, or the Aliyah is only on half the roof;

If the entire roof were surrounded by a wall, even without a Dakah, he would not forbid!

Question: We must resolve the words "sometimes a Dakah forbids", for the Dakah does not forbid or permit! (Even without it, he forbids.)